Tell McChrystal that all the new troops are going to fight climate change instead

Sorry McC. Rumsfeld had his head up his butt. His worldview was warped, and I would sympathize with you for trying to invent a reason for being in Afghanistan, but you military folks are holding a hammer and try to make everything into a nail. Now, if you could look around for a minute, you might notice that the whole biosphere is under attack, and the national security of the United States of America is threatened. The enemy? Climate change.

So, Obama, tell McC that he can have extra troops, but that they won't be sent to Afghanistan. They'll be assigned to stopping climate change, and they won't have any guns or missiles or things that kill.

By the way, Mr. Obama (and I did like your books, and I am trying to have hope and I like change), while I'm giving you orders, you could make me General of the CarbonWarRoom and let me invade Congress and the NYSE and institute a Carbon Share program. Maybe I'll take an army of wonky climate economists to Copenhagen and force the world to support a Global Climate Trust too.

To summarize, whatever the mission was in Afghanistan (helping Bush run up deficits so that Obama can't pass universal health care now?), we don't want it anymore. Bring the troops home, well, maybe leave a few Special Forces to hunt down bin Laden, but no need to try to run the whole country. Sure, I want to help women over there. Let's help fund some US AID workers and Oxfam and others that can set up shelters for battered women and schools, etc, and bring home the macho dudes with the rifles, who only make people anxious and aren't the right people to help women in burkas anyway.

Carbon War Room

Cap and Trade costs are only half the story - Auction revenues can be returned to consumers

Anti-cap and trade forces (oil companies, coal companies, and their campaign contribution recipients) are publicizing a U.S. Department of Treasury report on the costs of cap and trade. Their right-wing spin interprets the total in "new taxes" (which are actually auction revenues from the government selling permits to corporations, then having them pass costs to consumers) of between $100 billion to $200 billion a year as meaning the cost per American household could be up to $1,761 a year.

The spin is wrong for several reasons. First, it depends what you do with the money. You can return the auction revenues back to people as a dividend or share. The costs are totally different depending on what you do with the money. Look up Dallas Burtraw's papers on the RFF website for more info.

Second, each state has unique carbon costs, depending on the amount of coal in its electricity mix, investment in energy efficiency, weather (too cold or too hot and you use more heat or AC), and more. So if you're in ND, WY, or WV, sure, you'll pay more. But if you're in Vermont, CA, or even Idaho, you won't pay that much. Now, maybe you want some redistribution payments to make it more fair, and that can be done through modifying the per capita dividend or share. But let's take the right wing spin with a large grain of salt (or chunk of smoggy coal-filled toxic pollution).

Why do smears only work on good people? A Requiem for Van Jones

Why was my 6-year smear campaign against Rumsfeld less successful than Glenn Beck's 2-week smear campaign against Van Jones?

Do Dems just have no backbone, and when they get criticized they immediately run for cover? But I know Van Jones and he's no wimp. Maybe Obama can't stand up for his people, and wants to cater to the Repubs so he can get every possible vote on health care and climate. But how far will he bend? You give up Van Jones after a mere week or so?

I don't follow right wing media, so I don't know how loud their echo chamber was on Van. I don't know if the minority party Repubs had traction and could have actually used it to distract people from the important issues coming up. Is the very mention of having another commission examine 9-11 enough reason to fire a green jobs expert? What are people so afraid of? I do know that Van's a good guy, and doesn't deserve to be booted after only a few months on the job.

Is Obama going to be spineless when attacked? If so, here are some modified slogans for your next campaign: "Change we can believe in (until someone says something mean, then, we'll ask our change agents to resign)" "Change we can believe in (as long as no one ever asks any questions, and repudiates anything they ever said that was the least bit controversial, about Bush, Rumsfeld, the Iraq War, or 9-11)" "Hope (that Fox News doesn't smear anyone who works at the White House because if they do, then we'll immediately give up our whole agenda and hope they don't think of anything else to smear)" I really do hope that this isn't the case.

In counterpoint, Rumsfeld stuck around for 6 disastrous years. I wasn't smearing what Rumsfeld said about 9-11, I was smearing what he DID about it. Well, it's not really a smear if it's true. But Rumsfeld got to stick around, and Dems voted to support Bush's war plans, and to keep funding the war (even now).

In my idealistic blogosphere, smears against Rumsfeld would work, and Repub smears against good people would be ignored.

Advice for "No Impact Man"

No Impact Man, it's a stunt, don't get so defensive.
You should have spent the year going to NYC City council meetings, getting them to buy recycled toilet paper, and you'd save more trees than your patient wife who is a saint for being such a good sport just like the Supersize-Me guy's vegan girlfriend was.

We need to work for institutional change. When McDonald's began printing their logo on their napkins instead of embossing it, fitting more napkins per package needing fewer shipments, they saved more trees and reduced more GHGs than I could in my whole life.

We need a mandatory carbon cap, so that the price signal rewards good behavior, and makes Hummer drivers pay more. This could be done through a carbon tax or through cap and dividend, etc. Hopefully, No Impact Man will start promoting this, not just telling people to stop using toilet paper.

For most people, every weekend is a possibility for a low-impact day, the Sabbath. Yom Kippur is coming up, and millions of Jews will participate in a low impact day, and spend the day thinking about the impact they have made in the last year.

But Kolbert's conclusion is powerful, think about the impact you can make on those around you, don't just focus on your poor suffering patient wife. Make an impact on policy, don't just torture your wife. Hopefully you can use your book tour and publicity to promote that message, not just to defend the righteousness of your stunt.